Forum:Demotion Danuhau
We have talked about this before, but I would like to re-open this discussion. New users have appeared, other users have disappeared, opinions may have changed and new factors may have come up. Danuhau is currently a bureaucrat and administrator on the Worms Wiki, and I believe that this should no longer continue. I will state my reasoning below, and I would like to invite everyone to do the same. You can cast your vote in the sections below. Comments can be stated below that, in the comments section. I would like to ask Danuhau to refrain from voting on this matter, since he is the subject. People can't vote on their own promotion request either, so I think it's no more than fair. Comments from Danuhau are obviously more than welcome. Although the Manual of Style is not complete yet, I would like to ask everyone to keep to the rules on Talk Pages, which can be found here. Support People below think that Danuhau should be demoted. Admin and bureaucrat rights should be forfeited. Please add your signature to the unordered list below. *Koenachtig (talk) 11:51, March 4, 2015 (UTC) *Boggy B (talk) 15:03, March 4, 2015 (UTC) *--Orangitu Talk 10:12, March 5, 2015 (UTC) *Oscuritaforze (talk) 02:54, March 7, 2015 (UTC) *CoachSDot (talk) 10:02, March 9, 2015 (UTC) Indirect votes *Q* (link) Neutral / Recuse People below are not sure about the demotion, feel like they cannot vote, wish to refrain from voting or have another reason to vote neutral. Please add your signature to the unordered list below. *PartHunter (talk) 05:00, March 6, 2015 (UTC) Oppose People below think that Danuhau should NOT be demoted. Admin and bureaucrat rights should be kept. Please add your signature to the unordered list below. *'...' Comments Discussion and comments can be stated below. Don't forget to sign your posts. I will state my reasoning below. Some reason may be more important than other, though I feel like everything should be mentioned. Inactivity: Danuhau has been as good as inactive for over a month now. A small amount of minor edits appeared today, though I do not feel like improvement is close. Like he stated, he is very busy with school. I do have the feeling that this is unlikely to improve, since it's been going on for over a month. I feel like the other administrators have got things covered. Communication: Communication between the admins on the Worms Wiki is nearly perfect. Danuhau is not involved in this is any way. I feel like there is a lack of effort from his side to get involved in discussion with the other admins. To add to that. Lack of communication with the community is present as well. When changed are (to be) made on the Wiki, the community should be involved. Instanced on when other users did this: here, here, here and here. Those are all asking for community feedback. Danuhau is not asking for feedback, but simply acting 'in charge'. Edit count: I'm led to believe that Danuhau values edit counts. As can be seen here, he manages to edit the same article up to 8 times in a row. He managed to diff=13099&oldid=13037}} add his edit count and his diff=13037&oldid=11193}} achievement points to the news on the main page. This so called 'edit farming' is a bad example towards other users. (Also this) Blocking: The Worms Wiki has never seen so many before as now. I don't feel like Danuhau has an idea of when to block, why to block and for how long to block. Blocking is only for preventing vandalism, and is not for other things. Let me quote a section of the previous discussion on this matter. }} the first in this series of blocks (at the moment, I'm not too concerned about the massive increase in block time with the second entry, as talk:Danuhau|diff=11178&oldid=11177}} Danuhau claimed that was an accident). The reason given for this block ("Bad attitude") is rather vague, and the length of time the block is for (3 months) seems a bit disproportionate (a sentiment also echoed by talk:Danuhau|diff=11212&oldid=11194}} all of talk:Danuhau|diff=11223&oldid=11222}} the other talk:Danuhau|diff=11224&oldid=11223}} active users at the time). This alone is questionable enough. However, when talk:Q*|diff=11357&oldid=11117}} Q*terplx asked why he had been blocked, the talk:Q*|diff=11397&oldid=11393}} response he received essentially just said that "admins can block for any reason" and gave no further explanation. Considering how Q*terplx was a right up until he was blocked (and I would assert that said block hurt the wiki as a result), I would expect there to be some very good reasons for such a block, but said reasons have not materialized (and not for lack of asking; several requests for proof were made in this (unfortunately now deleted) forum). In this case, I can't help but conclude that Danuhau did not have the best interests of the wiki in mind when he made this block, regardless of his claims to the contrary.|Oscuritaforze|Forum:About_Danuhau's_status}} Being in charge: I cannot state it enough, the community is in charge, not the administrators. Looking at talk:Danuhau|curid=3232&diff=13823&oldid=13821}} this, then talk:Danuhau|diff=prev&oldid=13821}} this and then talk:Danuhau|diff=prev&oldid=13821}} this, Danuhau seems to think otherwise. Like he stated in the first one: [src]}} Even threatening to block PartHunter, gives me the feeling he thinks he is 'above' everything. Other: *Deleting this for the reason: 'stupid'. *This discussion, which can be seen as either immature, and proves that Boggy did not feel like he received a proper reason to be blocked. Some of the things I stated were mentioned before in the previous discussion, but I feel like they should be mentioned anyway. --Koenachtig (talk) 11:51, March 4, 2015 (UTC) :I concur with Koenachtig, though there are a couple things he missed. :#I believe Danuhau should be demoted due to the fact that he always attempts to scapegoat for his wrongdoings to defend himself, normally coming up with some completely made-up and invalid explanation such as "my school friends did it" and blocking Q* for several months the first time for several different, even self-contradictory reasons (if I remember correctly). About these phony explanations he tries to use in his defense, I believe he did the same thing for when he was accused of sock-puppetry, he explains something that has to do with his supposed half-sister handling the account when he was being accused, I don't remember what he said though. He even blamed his friends again when he blocked two innocent users, including his own "half-sister" and PartHunter. At first he simply said "reason state later" in his block reason for both users. Danuhau, what you've never done, you see, is provide us with evidence. We'll need proof from you to invalidate our accusations/suspicions, and therefore, have us let you keep your rights. :#I believe Danuhau should be demoted due to his aforementioned sock-puppetry (which can be proven true by this comment on the previous forum regarding Danuhau's demotion), while lying about the sock-puppet account belonging to a half-sister of his. If you're going to claim that this wasn't sock-puppetry and that really was your half-sister, once again, at least give us some form of evidence. :With Koenachtig's reasons and my reasons stated above, I believe Danuhau is ineligible for both administration and bureaucracy. Even though this was all long ago, it's hard to forget Danuhau's past actions, which were detrimental to our wiki. There are probably more reasons that I might have forgot to mention, and it'd be nice if someone could point out anything I missed. Either way, this has gone long enough. If Wikia Staff still decide not to demote him and he becomes active again here, I'm giving up my admin rights and leaving for good, just as Q* did. :Boggy B (talk) 15:03, March 4, 2015 (UTC) ::Thank you Boggy, for commenting. I'd like to add something else to my comment. ::At some point, a new Worms game will be announced and released. We should be expecting a lot of new editors at that point. New user should be welcomed carefully, since we want to bond with them, instead of having them leave again. I think Danuhau is more likely contribute to them leaving, than contributing to having them stay. ::--Koenachtig (talk) 15:23, March 4, 2015 (UTC) :::I'll have to agree with that. He may be more polite at first, then sometime later he'd manage to drive them away as he did with Oscuritaforze and Q*. :::Boggy B (talk) 15:29, March 4, 2015 (UTC) :I thoght this was over. Just as a note: This counts as instability of this wiki, so every time this is attempted, the capacity of this wiki to succesfully apply for addition to the spotlight rotation is delayed. :PartHunter (talk) 05:00, March 6, 2015 (UTC) ::Thank you for your comment. I did consider this indeed. And although I'd really love to see a spotlight happen for this wiki, that would mean attracting a lot of new users. New users should feel welcome, should not be scolded when they make a mistake and should definitely not be blocked for acting a bit different. ::I really did think hard about making this topic (considering the spotlight and the community itself), though I came to the conclusion that this would be best, because new users require a great responsibility for administrators. Responsibilities, which I think not everyone can handle. ::I appreciate your comment and vote! Thanks for that. ::Cheers, Koenachtig (talk) 07:12, March 6, 2015 (UTC) Whoa, didn't expect this issue to crop up again so soon, especially given Danuhau's low level of activity recently. Anyway, most everything I have to say has already been said in the previous on this topic. The only things I have to add at this point are as follows: #I don't really consider a low level of activity to be a problem, as I've always thought that real life issues should come before wiki stuff. This doesn't really counterbalance the rest of the reasons, but I thought I should say this anyway. #I think the sockpuppetry accusations are credible based on what Q* wrote Danuhau's status|diff=14443&oldid=14014}} here, but the results are still by no means 100% conclusive. I feel it is far more important to note the community's response to these accusations (which was almost universally to believe them), as this indicates a lack of crucial trust in Danuhau as an admin. Oscuritaforze (talk) 02:54, March 7, 2015 (UTC) :Low level of activity is a major reason why we've started this again in the first place. :#Most of the community wanted Danuhau to be demoted, however he got away with it the first time, and now we're using his lack of activity as another reason for his demotion. According to the Administration Policy, any administrator or bureaucrat who becomes inactive for three months without the proper reasoning behind this inactivity (they'd be considered inactive if they don't make any main-space edits for three months) should be a candidate for demotion. Danuhau has been inactive for 1-2 months so far, and although he's made a couple main-space edits (probably after reading the Administration Policy), it won't suffice for him to be deemed active in this case. We also know why he's inactive now, but that won't help either since he's already a demotion candidate, besides, he'll probably be inactive for months, most likely until summer vacation, since he appears to be busy with school. Normally inactivity shouldn't be a good reason for demotion especially since we know why Danuhau is inactive, but his past actions and almost the entire community wanting him gone already makes him a demotion candidate, and his inactivity increases the likelihood of him being demoted, regardless of whether Danuhau is following the inactivity policy or not. :#I suppose that's true, so we might as well encourage users to vote in this section on whether they believe Danuhau has committed sock-puppetry or not. :Boggy B (talk) 14:53, March 7, 2015 (UTC) Danuhau has been a jerk to an Anon called "Captain Falcon". I know because I am in fact this person. I'm so glad he is finally being demoted. He shouldn't have become admin in the first place. CoachSDot (talk) 10:06, March 9, 2015 (UTC) :Why are you here again? I thought we were too "Christ-hating" for you. :I'm not happy to see you again, but I am quite baffled. I'm warning you to behave this time, if you're willing to support Danuhau's demotion, that's fine with me, however you will be blocked if you cause more disruption. :Also, please use your real account here. Either that or don't use it, either way, if you use both accounts on this wiki I'll have to permanently block one of them since we forbid sock-puppetry. :Boggy B (talk) 10:30, March 9, 2015 (UTC) ::I forgot my password to my real account. And I was just leaving. Just here to say "good, this is happening" so yes I'll behave in God's eyes. See you around ::CoachSDot (talk) 11:20, March 9, 2015 (UTC) :::Ha ha, it's simply hilarious how you still bring up religion for everything you post, you haven't changed a bit, have you? It's also hilarious how you say "I'm leaving forever, bye-bye" and then return shortly. :::Looking forward to your next arrival. :::Boggy B (talk) 13:03, March 9, 2015 (UTC) Anyway, I'd like to announce that Danuhau has been demoted by staff member Semanticdrifter, since Koenachtig had (prematurely) sent the voting results to Wikia via email. Thank you all for voting. Voting on this page is officially closed, however comments are still accepted. Feel free to celebrate or something! Boggy B (talk) 13:16, March 9, 2015 (UTC) :Yeah, closing voting five days after it started is definitely a bit premature. I think a set time of one to two weeks (preferably the latter) would've been ideal, as that would've given Danuhau a reasonable amount of time to read and respond to this forum. Oscuritaforze (talk) 03:16, March 10, 2015 (UTC) ::I'm sorry, please excuse me for this. We had a big 6 votes on support, which made me contact staff quite quickly. I should've given it some more time. That's a good addition for a policy, I guess. We'll leave the topic open for any new comments, that's the best I can do to fix my mistake. ::Koenachtig (talk) 07:54, March 10, 2015 (UTC) :::Actually, I admire what Koenachtig has done - he got Danuhau demoted before he saw this, and he would have started to complain, and complain... He would have tried everything he could to prevent his demotion, probably including using sock-puppet accounts to defend himself or something. I don't want to know what he would have tried to do, what's important is that we prevented him from discovering this and we got his demotion over with, he only would have made it harder for us if he were active while everyone was voting. :::But, yeah, maybe we could add that to the policy anyway. :::Boggy B (talk) 10:38, March 10, 2015 (UTC) I think that it was pointless to re-open this debate just because I was busy with school... I already informed you many times, and the other Admins got the wiki covered in the meantime. I was not a "jerk" towards Captain Falcoln, I was polite until he started proselytizing. I was here alone for a while, about a year ago that is. That was a mistake, since I was far too unexperienced as an Admin. I admit that I made some bad choices, and due to other users convincing me, I did my best to redeem myself. Nevertheless, this community chose to punish me for relations that had already been resolved, and for inactivity already explained. This proves how much you don't want me around here, so I will try to remember that I should not return. Sorry. - Danuhau (talk) 08:08, March 20, 2015 (UTC) :I'd like to mention it's not about 'not wanting you around'. I'd love to have anyone around. I personally feel like this is about reduced trust. While trust is easy to lose, it's hard (but not impossible) to get it back. The reduced amount of trust you got (due to inexperience, as you say) makes me believe you need more time. And although I think you're a good contributor, I don't think the current situation would improve by having you as a bureaucrat. :Thanks for the comment and although it may not feel so, but I would like to see you back as a contributor now or at some point in the future. :--Koenachtig (talk) 08:35, March 20, 2015 (UTC) :Next time someone is talking about what they believe in, at least be nice about it. (BTW since Christianity is not a religion, but a way of life, "Captain Falcon wasn't Proselytizing, but saying what he believed.) :(CoachSDot (talk) 10:19, March 20, 2015 (UTC)) ::"Next time someone is talking about what they believe in, at least be nice about it." ::No-one is going to be nice about it because religion is irrelevant on sites like these, and pointless arguments and flame wars ensue after mentioning it. What I'm saying is, people aren't interested in what you believe in, at least not on Wikia. Please discuss it in real life or somewhere else on the Internet, somewhere more relevant, if you really need to. ::"(BTW since Christianity is not a religion, but a way of life, Captain Falcon wasn't Proselytizing, but saying what he believed.)" ::Christianity being a way of life is your opinion. And this is untrue, as you were proselytizing on talk pages, blog posts, and even certain articles. I'm sure that's not all. Either way, both proselytizing and "saying what you believe" are not appropriate here. Do you do the same on, say, Smashpedia, or do you treat wikis like those with more respect? ::Danuhau, after all you did last year (from blocking me and other users to possible sock-puppetry), almost the entire community agreed to your demotion, including the person who promoted you, yet you simply made it more difficult for us, and eventually getting away. During your inactivity, we saw this as our chance. Also, you only informed us once, not several times. Leaving the wiki or not is your choice, but don't blame us for making you want to leave (if this is what you plan on doing). And, one last thing, I personally believe you weren't being too polite ever since Orangitu left. As Koenachtig mentioned above, you attacked PartHunter, you constantly denied my promotion requests and eventually blocking me simply for wanting to leave after being frustrated for not being promoted earlier (and later you came up with actual reasons for blocking me), etc. I'm sorry, but the community believes that it's best for you to stay as a regular user. ::Boggy B (talk) 14:11, March 20, 2015 (UTC) :::I don't want conflict. I just wanted to say what was on my mind. You don't need to like me but just don't get mad like that... no offense. :::(CoachSDot (talk) 16:22, March 20, 2015 (UTC)) ::::Let's stay on topic guys, please. Koenachtig (talk) 16:28, March 20, 2015 (UTC) :::::I'm not mad, I don't even care anymore, since I'm an admin now. :::::There's no topic to stay on, the original topic was Danuhau's demotion, but since that's over now, we might as well move on from this forum. :::::Boggy B (talk) 17:48, March 20, 2015 (UTC) (Reset indentation) @Danuhau — Per Koen. I believe I have said multiple times that I don't have a problem with you as an editor, and I stand by that. Whether or not you want to full-on leave the wiki is up to you, but I doubt that is what most of the users of this wiki had in mind when they voted on this forum. Oscuritaforze (talk) 04:37, March 21, 2015 (UTC)